W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: New Specification Published!

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 19:36:54 +0100
Message-ID: <5113F446.80303@few.vu.nl>
To: <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
CC: 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org>, 'Robert Sanderson' <azaroth42@gmail.com>, 'James Smith' <jgsmith@gmail.com>, <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Rob, Tim, all,


> For what it's worth I also favor yours and Herbert's suggestion for
> namespace:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation#
>
>  From the outset we have wanted to keep the size of the vocabulary small,
> i.e., limiting ourselves to specialized, annotation-specific semantics -- no
> inventing or reinventing semantics beyond the bare minimum necessary to
> generically model and share annotations.
>
> I also do not think we need to preserve the potential for an extension
> namespace. Over time, there may be value in adding ancillary classes and
> properties for narrow use cases or for use in specific domains in
> conjunction with the Open Annotation, but if not core to Open Annotation
> (generic modeling&  sharing of annotations) I've concluded from our
> experiment with 'extension' over the summer that these should be developed
> and maintained separately under distinct rubrics.
>
> This logic also suggests 'openannotation' rather than 'annotation'. We know
> there are features and aspects of annotation important in one specific
> domain or another that are left out of what we've done. The 'open' makes
> clear that we are limiting our model and vocabulary to what is common to
> annotation in multiple domains and what is needed to share and interoperate
> over annotations spanning multiple domains and use cases. Using simply
> 'annotation' would be a bit arrogant, actually.


I'm not sure it would sound more arrogant than many other things floating around... But you certainly have a point here. Something that reflects the scope is therefore welcome. It could be 'core', 'simple' or others. But if W3C does not object to have a "brand" in their namespace, then the existing 'open' is of course a good fit.


  
> Preference of 'openannotation' instead of 'oa' is more a matter of personal
> preference and acronym overload. (And so, not a strongly felt position.)


I have a slight preference for 'oa'. But nothing that will make me send another mail if the other is chosen :-)\

Antoine
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:48:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:03 UTC